Von Ville v. Brennan

DARLENE K. VON VILLE, Plaintiff,v.MEGAN J. BRENNAN POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.

Elizabeth P. Deavers Magistrate Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

EDMUND
A. SARGUS, JR. CHIEF JUDGE

Plaintiff
Darlene K. Von Ville ("Plaintiff') brings this
action against Defendant Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General
of the United States Postal Service ("Defendant"),
alleging that Defendant discriminated against her due to her
disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. This matter is
before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) For the reasons that follow,
Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

I.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
is a former U.S. Postal Service employee. (Plaintiffs
Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
("PL's Opp.") at 2, ECF No. 34.) She began her
employment with the U.S. Postal Service ("USPS") on
April 20, 1985, left work in July 12, 2007, and retired due
to a disability in October 2007.[1] (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant discriminated against her due to her
disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (Id. at 9.)

In
March of 2002, Plaintiffs psychologist wrote Defendant
stating that Plaintiff should be moved to the position of a
window clerk. (Id. at 2.) Between March 2002 and
June 2002 Defendant indicated to Plaintiff that there were no
window clerk positions available. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that she took disability leave from September 2002
until October 28, 2004. (Def. Ex. 5, Plaintiffs
Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories,
ECF No. 27-9.) On September 9, 2002 Plaintiff received a
Notice of Removal for "Unsatisfactory
Attendance/Improper Conduct" from USPS. That same month,
Plaintiff filed an internal complaint with USPS alleging that
the USPS failed to accommodate her disability by not placing
her in the work location recommended by her psychologist. On
March 17, 2003, the USPS issued Plaintiff a Notice of
Separation. However, on October 28, 2004, after Plaintiffs
workers compensation benefits terminated, Plaintiff was
reinstated by USPS as a window clerk.[2](Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Br. Summ. J.") at 7,
ECF No. 27.) In April of 2005, Plaintiff successfully bid for
a new position in the Registry Room as a mail processing
clerk. (Id.) She worked in the Registry Room until
June of 2005 when Plaintiff stopped working and collected
workers compensation until September 2005. (PL's Opp. at
13.) From September 2005 until July 2007, Plaintiff worked as
a clerk in the distribution center. (Def. Ex. 5, ECF No.
27-9.)

After
holding a hearing on Plaintiffs complaint, the EEOC
Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") issued a decision
concluding that the USPS failed to take reasonable steps to
accommodate Plaintiff and discriminated against her on the
basis of her disability when it issued her separation notices
in 2002 and 2003.[3] (PL's Opp. at 2-3.) The USPS adopted
the ALJ's decision on September 12, 2005. Upon adopting
the ALJ's decision, the USPS then issued an order
("Final Order") stating that the USPS "would
determine the appropriate amount of back pay, interest, and
other benefits due Petitioner from September 9, 2002, until
the present." (PL Ex.F.at2, ECFNo. 34-6.)

After
further appeals and determinations regarding the amount of
compensation owed to Plaintiff, the USPS issued Plaintiff
checks on April 22, 2011 for $27, 789.83 in back pay and
benefits and $18, 809.95 in interest. Plaintiff does not
contest her receipt of the money or that she accepted the
compensation. According to a compliance report submitted by
the USPS to the EEOC's Compliance Office, the USPS
complied with the Final Order by taking the following
actions: USPS expunged pertinent information from all
records; provided eight hours of EEO training to the
responsible management official; issued a check to Plaintiff
for $27, 789.83 in back pay and benefits and $18, 809.95 in
interest; and issued a check to Plaintiffs attorney for $2,
501.71 in attorney's fees and costs. (Def. Ex. A, EEOC
Decision On a Petition For Enforcement, ECF No. 27-2.) Of the
$27, 789.83 issued to Plaintiff for back pay, $7, 016.62,
marked as "additional income" compensated Plaintiff
for the loss of her annual leave. (Def. Ex. B, ECF No. 27-3.)

Plaintiff
filed a Petition for Enforcement on July 10, 2013, alleging
that Defendant failed to comply with the ALJ's Final
Order. On October 31, 2014, The ALJ determined that "the
Agency complied with our order to provide Petitioner with
back pay together with interest and benefits, and to provide
her a detailed account of its calculations" and that the
Defendant had reinstated Plaintiff to a window clerk position
on October 28, 2004. (Id.)

On
January 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint with
this Court alleging that Defendant violated the
Rehabilitation Act by discriminating against her due to her
disability-by failing to comply with the EEOC decision and by
constructively discharging her. Defendant moved for summary
judgement contending that Plaintiff failed to offer any
evidence to establish a prima facie claim under the
Rehabilitation Act.

II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary
judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). The Court may therefore grant a motion for summary
judgment if the nonmoving party who has the burden of proof
at trial fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
existence of an element that is essential to that party's
case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 322
(1986).

The
"party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis
for its motion and identifying those portions of the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact." Id. at 323 (internal
quotations omitted). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving
party who "must set forth specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). "The evidence of the nonmovant is to
be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn
in his favor." Id. at 255 (citing Adickes
v. S. H. Kress & Co.,398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)).
A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at
248; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp.,475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (the requirement
that a dispute be "genuine" means that there must
be more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts").

Consequently,
the central issue is "whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or
whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a
matter of law." Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
at 251-52.

III.
ANALYSIS

Plaintiff
alleges that USPS did not comply with the Final Order
requiring the USPS to reinstate and compensate her for found
discrimination and that USPS discriminated against her on
account of her disability through a constructive discharge.
USPS moves for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff s claims.

A.
Defendant Complied with the Final Order.

Plaintiff
contends that Defendant did not comply with the Final Order
for three reasons: (1) she was not reinstated into her
position as a window clerk; (2) Defendant did not compensate
her for lost benefits; and (3) Defendant did not give her
access to her Thrift Savings Plan ("TSP").

As
discussed below, Defendant has presented sufficient evidence
showing that it did comply with the Final Order. As such,
Plaintiff has been fully compensated and accepted
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.